Famigletti v. Del Terzo

186 Misc. 444, 60 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1938
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 7, 1946·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Memorándum Per Curiam.

The cause of action for fraud arising out of the breach of promise to marry upon which the judgment was entered is legally insufficient (Andie v. Kaplan, 288 N. Y. 685; Josephson v. Dry Dock Savings Institution, 292 N. Y. 666; Hecht v. Yarnis, 268 App. Div. 771). The issuance of the body execution, therefore, was without basis.

The judgment, apart from the body execution, was supported by testimony making a prima facie showing of appellant’s failure to repay loans. Appellant not having shown sufficient excuse for his failure to proceed with the trial the lower court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a condition on the opening of the default.

The order appealed from should be modified to the extent of granting the motion to vacate and set aside the order directing the issuance of body execution, and said execution, without terms, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Hammer, Shientag and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Famigletti v. Del Terzo, 186 Misc. 444, 60 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1938 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1946).

186 Misc. 444 (Famigletti v. Del Terzo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arnold v. National Plastikwear Fashions, Inc.
6 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Lisbin v. Cohen
1 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)